DOLGOBINDA PARICHA versus NIMAI CHARAN MISRA & OTHEH,S

DOLGOBINDA PARICHA versus NIMAI CHARAN MISRA & OTHEH,S

Statements in Exhibit 1 were made before the dispute as to the relationship arose and thus were admissible as to pedigree under Section 32(5); oral evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, showing conduct and belief as to relationship, was admissible under Section 50. Both High Court and trial court correctly decreed the suit based on admissible evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Dolgobinda Paricha; Respondents: Nimai Charan Misra & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment Dated March 9, 1951 in Appeal From Original Decree No. 14 of 1946, Arising Out of Title Suit No. 16 of 1944, Subordinate Judge at Sambalpur
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Interpretation of Indian Evidence Act Section 32(5) and Section 50, Pedigree Evidence, Hindu Succession Act (pre 1956): Mitakshara Succession and Effect of Hindu Law of Inheritance (amendment) Act, 1929
Evidence Law Hindu Succession Admissibility of Evidence Interpretation of Indian Evidence Act Section 32(5) and Section 50 Pedigree Evidence Hindu Succession Act (pre 1956): Mitakshara Succession and Effect of Hindu Law of Inheritance (amendment) Act, 1929

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dolgobinda Paricha

Appellant

Nimai Charan Misra & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment Dated March 9, 1951 in Appeal From Original Decree No. 14 of 1946, Arising Out of Title Suit No. 16 of 1944, Subordinate Judge at Sambalpur

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Exhibit 1, a joint statement of three persons (one deceased), is admissible under Section 32(5) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  2. 2 Whether oral testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 is admissible under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act as opinion expressed by conduct on relationship
  3. 3 Whether the statements in Exhibit 1 were ante litem motam and evidentiary under Section 32(5)

Ratio Decidendi

Statements in Exhibit 1 were made before the dispute as to the relationship arose and thus were admissible as to pedigree under Section 32(5); oral evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, showing conduct and belief as to relationship, was admissible under Section 50. Both High Court and trial court correctly decreed the suit based on admissible evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of contesting respondents